New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

Joseph Hage Aaronson

History of Prevailing Party Attorneys’ Fees (US vs. UK) in a Few Sentences — Good Quotes: (1) District Court Doesn’t Address All Factors; (2) Sanctions: Absence of Dismissal Motion Undercuts Claim Case Was Frivolous from Outset

Gibson v. Solideal USA, Inc., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 14415 (6th Cir. July 10, 2012): It is true that some jurisdictions routinely award fees to the prevailing party. Footnote 1. In Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Co., 386 U.S.…
Continue Reading

§ 1927 Sanctions Properly Denied Because Defense Counsel’s Time Records Did Not Permit Him to Identify Time Specifically Spent Defending 10 Meritless Claims That Were Dismissed on the Eve of Trial

Jackson v. Diversified Collection Servs., Inc., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 12392 (10th Cir. June 19, 2012): DCS sought fees against Mr. Jackson’s attorney, claiming that he acted in bad faith dismissing numerous claims at the start of trial. The district…
Continue Reading

Spoliation — Destruction of Disposable Breath Test Device That Does Not Retain Results Is Not Sanctionable — Manufacturer’s Statement That It “Is Not Intended To Legally Determine Blood Alcohol” Goes to Weight — Good Quote on Daubert

Rutledge v. NCL (Bahamas), Ltd., 464 Fed. Appx. 826 (11th Cir. Mar. 20, 2012): Ada Mae Rutledge appeals several of the district court’s evidentiary rulings in her negligence-based jury trial against Norwegian Cruise Line (“NCL”). Rutledge was aboard NCL’s Norwegian…
Continue Reading

Discovery under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 — Ex Parte / OSC Approach Satisfies Due Process — Deferential Appellate Review: “Not Outside the Range of Permissible Decisions”

Gushlak v. Gushlak, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 13535 (2d Cir. July 3, 2012): Respondent-appellees Myron Gushlak (“Gushlak”) and Yelena Furman (“Furman”) appeal from orders of the district court granting Debbie Gushlak’s petition for an order of judicial assistance, under 28…
Continue Reading

Imposing Inherent Power Sanctions without Order to Show Cause Violates Due Process — Footnote in Prior Opinion Insufficient — Decision to Sanction Made Unilaterally, Rendering Notice Nugatory — Sanctions for Violating Local Font Rules Reversed

Kornhauser v. Comm’r of Social Security, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 13504 (11th Cir. July 2, 2012): Valinda S. Kornhauser brought this lawsuit to challenge the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying her claim for disability benefits. The District…
Continue Reading

While Rule 11 Does Not Impose a Continuing Duty to Update, Correct or Withdraw a Pleading, It Does Bar Continued Prosecution After a Claim Becomes Meritless (Here, Settlement Agreement Entered)

Fuerst v. Fuerst, 832 F. Supp. 2d 210 (E.D.N.Y. 2011): As an initial matter, the Defendant’s contention that sanctions are warranted relies on the presumption that the Settlement effectuated a release of the Plaintiff’s claims. A review of the Settlement…
Continue Reading
Previous316317318319320321322Next

Recent Articles

Spoliation: Dismissal Under Rule 37(e)(2) and Monetary Sanctions Under Rule 37(e)(1), Implicitly Reading The “Or” Between 37(e)(1) and 37(e)(2) As Conjunctive, Not Disjunctive — Clear Error Standard of Review for District Court’s Intent (= Bad Faith) Finding under 37(e)(2)(C) — Additional Monetary Sanctions Imposed on Claimants under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and Rule 37(a)(5) — No Right to Jury Determination of Intent under Rule 37(e)(2) — “Substantially Justified” in Rule 37(a)(5) Has Same Meaning As In Equal Access to Justice Act and Thus Rule 11 — Meaning of “Unreasonable and Vexatious” in 7th Circuit

nherent Power Sanction of Dismissal — Preponderance of the Evidence Burden of Proof, Not Clear and Convincing Evidence (7th Circuit)

§ 1927 Sanctions — Must A Lawyer Who Unreasonably and Vexatiously Multiplies Federal Court Proceedings Be Acting “As An Attorney” When Committing the Misconduct To Be Subject to Sanction under § 1927?

Rule 37 Sanctions — Unfamiliarity With Litigation Process Does Not Excuse Intentional Disregard of Court Order — Also Affirming Rule 26(g) Sanctions on Clients and Counsel for False Representations That All Responsive Documents Had Been Produced

Supreme Court: Notice of Appeal Filed After The Original Deadline But Before Reopening by The District Court Is Timely — It Relates Forward to The Date of The Order Making The Appeal Possible — Second Notice of Appeal After Reopening Unnecessary

Rule 37 Default Judgment: Second Circuit’s Four-Factor Test for Imposing Defaults and Three-Factor Test for Lifting Them

Rule 37 Default Judgment — Tenth Circuit Multifactor Test Is Not Exhaustive But a Non-Exclusive List of “Sometimes-Helpful Criteria Or Guide Posts”— Appeal from Preliminary Injunction Mooted by Entry of Permanent Injunction — Difficulty in Collecting Damages Award May Equal Irreparable Injury — A Monetary Award For Past Conduct Does Not Preclude A Permanent Injunction Against Similar Wrongful Conduct Likely To Occur In The Future

RICO: Cover-Up Within Limitations Period of Untimely RICO Violation “Was Merely A Continuation” Of The Original Injury And Could Not Be Used “As A ‘Bootstrap’ To Salvage [The] Time-Barred Claims–Declining to Apply Pinkerton Doctrine to Civil RICO Claims

Inherent Power — Circumstantial Evidence — Fact That Bad Faith May Be Shown by Establishing That Conduct Was So Egregious It Was Necessarily Committed in Bad Faith Does Not Mean That Bad Faith Must Be The Sole Explanation for The Bad Conduct

RICO Causation: Testing Labs’ Misstatements As to Alcohol Tests’ Efficacy Not Communicated to Plaintiffs’ Employers Did Not Cause Plaintiffs’ Professional Harm

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2025 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice